My Experiences as a Private Eye
As a Victorian licensed Enquiry Agent and Process Server from 1962 until 2000, it has been suggested that I record my experiences before they are lost. My time in this profession was vastly different from what contemporary agents experience today, particularly in the nature and type of work handled by private detectives.
The early history of my profession is no longer able to be lived again by agents today, as circumstances governing our activities have changed dramatically. I do not know who, if anyone, may now be interested in learning about the “old days” of our profession, but nevertheless, I consider it is important for these experiences to be recorded. I was present at the establishment of our first Association, and the details I recall are set out in this article.
Some decades later, I was honoured with a Life Membership of our Association under the presidency of Stan Cook. I retired around fifteen years ago and am told by the few still in the profession that the work available today—what little there is—is repetitive, boring, and offers very little reward.
In the earlier days of my career, there was a great variety in the nature of enquiries with which we were faced, and a good deal of the work was exciting and enjoyable, but at the same time required a degree of cunning and daring. In particular, there was an extremely broad field of divorce work and other types of enquiry. I am confident in saying that I am the last of the “old Private Eyes” in this State. Further, I am equally confident that no previous Agent had the degree of control over such a wide variety of investigations and Agents as I did.
My First Licences
I was only twenty-one when, one evening in early 1962, I was sitting in the bar lounge of The Ritz Hotel, Fitzroy Street, St. Kilda, where I lived at the time. I had engaged in a civil litigation case (dock labour terms) with a prominent divorce barrister named David. P. Sonnenberg, who subsequently had his chambers at the top of the stairway—top floor and apex—of Switzerland House, 190 Queen Street, Melbourne.
He was sitting across the lounge from me, discussing a large divorce case with a licensed enquiry agent named Langham. He waved me over and introduced me to Langham with the words “this is my Private Detective”.
After telling Langham some of my history, he suggested that I apply for an Enquiry Agent’s Licence.
I applied and was interviewed by a St. Kilda police officer after my history and references were checked. He recommended in writing that I was “a fit and proper person to be the holder of the licence applied for”. At that time my legal work pertained only to the extension of my Restriction Visa due to an assumed “invasion of Queensland” by the Japanese.
My Application was heard for a Enquiry Agent’s Licence at the St. Kilda Magistrates’ Court, then situated on the triangle of land at Barkly Street, Fitzroy Street, and The Esplanade. I subsequently appeared for the Application to be heard by a Stipendiary Magistrate of the Court of Petty Sessions, sitting alone. There was no opposition to the granting of the Licence and, upon payment of the prescribed yearly fee, the Licence was issued under the provisions of the Victorian Government’s Private Agents Act.
A year or two later I applied for, and was granted, a Process Server’s Licence under the same Act.
Langham, who was an ex-Sergeant of the Victorian Police Force, soon began assigning me to an ever-increasing number of enquiries. During this time, I had met a prominent private detective named Frank. J. Sherren, who was associated with the George Hotel in Fitzroy Street, St. Kilda. He employed me on a part-time basis as an Enquiry Agent. Frank and Langham were mature men of vision and influence. We were exposed to every nuance of PRIVATE EYE WORK. With both Langham and Sherren, I was ultimately deeply immersed in private detective work, dealing with the most influential personalities, businessmen, clients, and respondents.
The Early Days – Evidence of Adultery for Divorce
Langham eventually offered me full-time employment, and I became operations manager of his MI-4 Detective Agency Pty. Ltd., operating from the sixth floor of the Port Authority Building, 18 Collins Street, Melbourne. This was the very early part of my long career as a private detective. Under the influence of this ex-Sergeant, I very quickly learned of the post-war frailties of human nature, irrespective of class, and the need to have a responsible, sympathetic and understanding attitude toward matrimonial clients—many of whom were highly emotional about the circumstances of their case.
Within weeks of my employment, I had flown interstate and stayed at capital and some regional cities. Langham trusted me impeccably with major enquiries and accordingly chose my fellow agents in the field. In some cases, the expenses were enormous to cover air travel, accommodations, meals and other minor costs. Langham ran two vehicles for his businesses, and steps were carefully taken to reduce costs.
Gathering such evidence for divorce proceedings required diligence, selflessness, mental, and at times, physical bravery, and a high degree of personal discipline. We were at times subjected to highly stressful, even stressful situations and we were usually isolated from one another. Where an agent or agents had been deployed, there was very little relief facility to do so, or sometimes none at all.
Any mistake made by an Agent could directly affect the outcome of his client’s case. Typical situations involved partitioning children. It can probably be said that the welfare and best interests of the children were not always paramount.
Many people have asked me over the years for my opinion as to whether adultery cases involved men more often than women. The answer is no. I had found that women had an equal amount of predilections. Also, the married women I encountered seemed to be far less selfish, but then again, there was not the same opportunity provided to them involving leisure time, or the finances expended.
Over more than two decades, there were literally hundreds upon hundreds of divorce enquiries that were my responsibility and I had at various times, up to a dozen or so of reliable and diligent Agents assisting me. Then there was a large proportion of cases I personally handled.
The law at that time required that only evidence demonstrating that the alleged respondent—one of the nominees—had sufficient opportunity and inclination to commit the act of adultery was required to justify this.
This meant that we often saw:
- meetings of parties in various circumstances
- walking together, holding hands or kissing in bars, restaurants, theatres, hotels or motels, boarding-houses, guest-houses and private dwellings; attending meetings in motor cars, motels, hotels, boarding houses, private dwellings and other premises; and listening through closed doors, around windows, sometimes encountering danger and duress. Once we confirmed that the parties had retired to the same bedroom, we were justified in drawing the inference that the act of adultery may have taken place.
It is important to bear in mind that many “acts of adultery” take place outside bedrooms, in lounge-rooms, kitchens, laundries and cars, so in effect we did not have to “catch them in the act” of sexual intercourse. It is often a misconception that private detectives did so or are required to do so. We had to prove merely that the act of adultery could have taken place.
On two separate occasions, I was confronted with shotguns by respondents. One of these instances resulted in me arriving at the conclusion that the shotguns involved in either encounter had been engaged as props. Could it have occurred today, the outcome may have been different. On both occasions I was successful in presenting convincing arguments that the actions we were involved in were completely lawful, and that my instructions were being lawfully carried out. To that extent, I can only report that the wealth of knowledge and experience gained were the reasons for my survival.
My Personal Rules Against Photography During Forcible Confrontations
Over the many years I was engaged in this type of work, I never permitted my Agents to take photographs during the course of forcible entries into premises, or even during those court cases. I considered this type of evidence to be degrading and humiliating to my clients. In addition, I believed that it unnecessarily inflamed the circumstances encountered, almost invariably placed me and my Agents in danger, and was grossly unfair to both parties. It was my firm view that when party’s worst behaviour and appearance were captured in photographs, it was counterproductive.
We saw people involved in some of the worst experiences of their lives. At such times, I did what I could to avoid humiliating them. At other times, we would be subjected to abuse. Even so, my own clients on some occasions would be less than cordial and respectful.
I have always taken the view that these types of divorce raids were essentially humiliating and degrading experiences for those involved, and I did everything I could to ensure that the events were recorded in a fair and dignified manner.
Forcible Confrontation – the “Divorce Raid”
Once I had been satisfied that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient in a case, steps were taken to place the action of adultery direct in the bedroom. This posed the question: how to achieve this?
Entry was achieved in instances where doors to bedrooms were unlocked. If locked, we would knock on the door. If the door were opened, we would prevent it from being relocked or slammed in our faces. The client—more often than not—could accompany us in the raid and often was required solely for identification purposes.
These raids were sometimes an extreme source of stress at the time and, with the passage of years, one wonders how or why we were prepared to continue with this type of work. The fact remains that the parties concerned sometimes had more to lose during the raid than we did—regarding both questions and violence. We could mitigate the violence, avoid engaging in conflict, even go to great lengths to avoid this, and try to behave in as gentlemanly a manner as possible. We were thus engaged in a delicate situation at such times, especially in circumstances where there was intense argument, tension, and verbal or physical aggression.
From memory, there were hundreds of raids in which we executed forcible entry throughout Australia. Some were in commercial premises, hotels or flats, in block of flats, boarding houses, private dwellings, hotels and motels. I can only think of one occasion—at a boarding house in Moonee Ponds—where we “walked in” slowly, completely undetected and unannounced, and encountered the unsuspecting parties in each case whilst they were conversing in the bedroom. Even then, in those circumstances, we treated them with all due respect and sympathy, which we considered the circumstances warranted.
As with other aspects of the work, agents who accompanied me on raids were required to perform up to a standard which meant they would not let us down. I can state emphatically that out of more than twelve hundred raids I was engaged in, I was never let down once.
Often the adulterous parties were calm and barely uttered a word. This occurred simply because they had no knowledge of when or even if such a raid would take place. Nevertheless, raids were generally tense and emotionally charged with the respondents—particularly in moments of recognition.
It was not unusual for us to come across couples who had been living as man and wife for several years. These were cases where couples had separated, living apart “separately and apart” (non-cohabitation) and were now looking to strengthen their case in terms of finances and custody. In other circumstances, identification was sometimes achieved by sight, appearance and conversation.
From time to time my position in the raids meant that I was vulnerable to attack, as were other Agents, in various ways. These threats often manifested themselves, and we would almost certainly be confronted with a hostile response. There were torn clothes, furniture being broken, property damaged and public, as well as private, confrontations. Nevertheless, I was in a position of complete control and duty-bound to minimise the likelihood or extent of violence. We were in charge of what transpired and had the authority to conduct ourselves lawfully and without unnecessarily inflaming the situation.
I gave evidence in the then Supreme Court of Victoria ad infinitum, and there was never any suggestion that my evidence was being rejected by any of the presiding Justices. In fact, that was my only compensation given the fact that some of them looked utterly bored, disinterested, and wanted to have the matters completed and out of the way.
The Collapse of MI-4 and Hunter Investigation Service
The coupled responsibilities of my job (and the considerable burden that it placed on my family life) were something that, at that time, I did not consider as important as they actually were. In those days, work was everything to me, and I put my family second. I believed that if I did this, I was serving my family best, for without my work there would be no income. Nevertheless, in hindsight, I now realise that I sacrificed a lot of family life in pursuit of my job.
MI-4 was indebted to creditors and could not meet its commitments. Eventually, Langham closed MI-4 and immediately reopened another company called Hunter Investigation Service Pty. Ltd., which might today be perceived as a ‘phoenix company’. Such a definition was probably not considered applicable at the time.
Not once did I see a balance-sheet of either Company, nor did I have any idea of either the extent of their liabilities nor their net worth. It was only a long time after I left Langham’s beautiful home that I formed the view that he had mismanaged the Companies in terms of their financial affairs. On reflection, it seemed obvious, given the enormous overheads and the fact that we were often not paid by some of our more ‘prestigious’ clients.
It was clear that Langham took on more staff than he could afford. Staff were engaged for field work who did not come up to the ‘mark’. Vehicles were purchased, expenses were incurred, and there was an enormous and steady outflow of cash that the Companies simply could not sustain in the long term.
Langham’s next venture was to conceive of and implement the Australian Academy of Investigation. Sellable courses were delivered by way of correspondence. He drafted twenty-five units of information and study, and the students received these at a cost of £35 (that is, $70). The Academy was an enormous success. Many of those who successfully completed the course went on to open their own Agencies, and several remained, for a considerable period of time, in the profession. Langham did very well financially from the Academy, and it was, in many respects, a great idea and very well-executed by him.
Nonetheless, the same pattern of behaviour with respect to mismanagement and overspending led ultimately to the closure of Hunter as well.
He contributed significantly to the Private Eye profession, and many in the profession owe him a debt of gratitude. However, his financial management left a lot to be desired.
Langham’s Death
Langham’s mismanagement and the eventual closure of MI-4 and Hunter led me to realise that I could no longer work for him indefinitely. At the end, he had virtually no assets and had taken flying lessons that he could not afford. Years later, at a nursing home in Vermont, I visited him. He appeared frail and somewhat confused. On 28 August 2013, he passed away. I attended his funeral. Some of his former staff and Agents were present.
“Inge” Detective Agency Pty. Ltd. – Enver (Edward) Begovic
Once Hunter had collapsed, I found myself unemployed overnight—with a wife, two young sons, and a mortgage. However, I was then, and remain to this day, a great believer in the notion that if a person is willing to work hard and accept responsibility, then opportunity will generally present itself.
Within a day or two of Hunter’s collapse, my colleague and friend Vic. Bristow, who specialised in Missing Persons’ work, phoned me to say that an Agency in East Melbourne, called Inge Detective Agency Pty. Ltd., needed an experienced Agent and that he had recommended me. Inge Detective Agency was owned by Enver Begovic, a Croatian migrant who later changed his name to Edward. A. Abalon. He was responsible for some of the most harrowing stories of torture under the Nazi regime, and had the scars to prove it.
Begovic was, in my view, a difficult man in many respects. It was said that he carried his emotional and physical scars from his war-time experiences and that this affected his behaviour. I observed on many occasions that he was less than honest with Agents about the work given to them and the fees charged to the clients. He had a tendency to “double-dip” in that respect. Often, he might suggest to Agents that the fee was less than what had actually been paid by the client, while demanding high standards of performance from the Agents. It made for a sometimes uneasy relationship between him and his Agents.
I made it my business to smooth out the relationship between Begovic and the Agents. He had a way of creating animosity; I found myself constantly having to act as a mediator of sorts.
Inge Detective Agency recruited Agents from former ESDA staff, including a man who had been with one of the leading law firms for over thirty years. We had quite a variety of work, including divorce matters, workers’ compensation, fault-based accident claims, insurance matters, undercover operations and theft investigations. We also had an ongoing arrangement with the Commonwealth Police (as it then was) that they would drop in from time to time to speak with Begovic. It is my understanding that certain members of the Croatian community were under scrutiny in relation to activities thought to be of concern to national security.
Notwithstanding the difficulties in working with Begovic, I remained there for a significant period of time, gaining valuable experience and building up my own network of Agents and contacts.
Begovic eventually changed his name to Abalon and sold the business. He died some years later.
The Association – PIPSAOV / APD / AISP
I recall very well the establishment of our first Association. It was originally called The Private Investigators and Process Servers’ Association of Victoria (PIPSAOV). The first meetings were held upstairs at the Victoria Hotel, Little Collins Street, Melbourne, in the late 1960s or early 1970s. Fifty to sixty licence holders attended. Lawyers and police officers were invited as guests. These meetings were lively and at times quite heated. The original President was Eric. G. Englander, who was a very competent and enthusiastic man.
I later became more actively involved in Association matters, including disciplinary action against members whose conduct fell below the standards expected. It was an important step towards establishing and maintaining professional standards in the industry. The Association’s title later changed to the Association of Professional Detectives (APD), and eventually became part of what we know today as the Association of Investigators and Security Professionals (AISP).
Retired Police in the Profession
It had been evident for many years that Private Detectives and the police did not enjoy a mutual respect. Some police members considered us to be “cowboys”, in their own words, whether there was any justification for this belief or not. It was perceived as being the case. The mistake police made was that they had the luxury of calling for backup whenever they were in difficulties with their work.
Private Agents had very little opportunity to do so, and in this sense we were in a very different and, in many cases, more dangerous position.
The perception of our profession changed when senior police retired and took up positions within the private sector. For example, Superintendent Phillip. J. Bennett, who had been in charge of Traffic and brought about substantial change in traffic law enforcement, retired from the Victoria Police and opened his own Agency. His heath deteriorated and he eventually died. In addition, former Deputy Commissioners of Police, such as Robert. J. Matthews and Neil. E. Gibson, went on to work in or with private Agencies.
This brought about a marked change in the way police perceived our profession and the value of our work.
My Own Business – Eastern Suburbs Detective Agency (ESDA)
Just prior to the law changing to remove adultery-based divorce grounds (before the Family Law Act 1975), I opened up my own Agency, Eastern Suburbs Detective Agency Pty. Ltd. (ESDA), in partnership with Richard. C. D’Arce. Over time, we parted company on reasonable terms. Richard later opened his own Agency and continued working in the profession until his death.
ESDA obtained from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia an exclusive contract to handle various types of legal work throughout Victoria for more than twenty-four years. This was both a privilege and a considerable source of work. The contract covered a wide range of matters, including Magistrates’ Court claims, debt recovery, service of legal process, home and personal loan matters, and confidential enquiries into the behaviour and circumstances of bank staff and customers. We also appointed as an agent to the State Bank of Victoria in relation to litigation work.
For three years, we also had a substantial contract with the Westpac Banking Corporation, which involved serving process and conducting enquiries in relation to major debt recovery and other matters.
ESDA handled literally thousands of matters, including:
- West Gate Bridge collapse matters
- Pyramid Building Society collapse matters
- State Bank of Victoria matters
- missing persons
- insurance theft investigations
- undercover surveillance
- employee misconduct investigations
I later introduced computer systems, dramatically improving efficiency.
Privacy Acts, Legal Changes & Retirement
Privacy legislation in the late 1980s and 1990s changed everything. New laws effectively brought an end to much of the work that we relied upon. The very type of enquiries that had, in the earlier decades, constituted the bread and butter of our profession became much more restricted. The move towards “no-fault” divorce and away from fault-based litigation, as well as increased privacy protections, meant that less work was available to us.
At the same time, the collapse of certain financial institutions (including the Pyramid Building Society), subsequent changes, and an overall decline in motor vehicle accident and workers’ compensation litigation caused a further drop in process-serving volume.
I retired in 1999/2000. One of my sons took over the business before we eventually sold it.
On a later visit to Victoria, I pulled up beside a vehicle with the registration “ESDA”. The driver—son of the man who bought my agency—told me, “You sold it too cheaply.” He was right.
Conclusion
I am a Foundation Member and Life Member of the Association and still attend general meetings. However, what is discussed today bears little resemblance to the work I once performed.
I have had a long and successful career in a unique field—one that will never again exist as it did, and I am convinced that there will never be another Bob Jackson working as a Private Detective under those circumstances. The world, laws, and profession have changed forever.
Success requires luck, and I had my fair share. Perhaps I simply entered the profession at the right time.
Robert A. Jackson
